\section{Analysis of Interview with Rudiger Martin}
\label{sec:rudigermartin}

The validity and reliability of R\"udiger Martin's statements are high because of his involvement in FP7 programme of European Commission where he is responsible for funding all the researches about future Internet development (Appendix \ref{app:martin}: 4:26). His involvement with European Commission increases his validity while he has been involved in selecting different research projects for future development of the Internet. This also provides us with the opportunity of being aware of other similar approaches if there are any. As he is not involved in any private organization, this sets more validity in his statements.   


\subsection{Motivations and Incentives for ICN deployment}
\label{subsec:rudigermotivations}
In his introduction, R\"{u}diger Martin indicates that there are some sort of motivations and incentives behind every ICN research funding. This he clarifies by saying \begin{quote}
\textit{``It came out that ICN is at the moment a hot research topic. It deserves to be followed, which deserves to be further developed.''} (Appendix \ref{app:martin}: 7:16)
\end{quote}
We can argue that the need for further development in the Internet was foreseen and proposals were called, where ICN was proposed as a solution for the future Internet. Although, there are motivations and incentives behind researching ICN based projects, R\"udiger argues that they as a research funder do not have any incentives in pushing it towards deployment (Appendix \ref{app:martin}: 7:16). This can be related with what \cite{JOOP} call common goods, where everybody can have a free ride but are not obliged to its maintenance. Furthermore, this can be also understood as a participation for individual reasons rather than for an overall goal. Also, R\"udiger further added,
\begin{quote}
\textit{``[...] but in the end it is not really up to us as a research funder to make it really become a reality, its more up to the industry partners, up to the academic partners to really take it up and make something out of it [...]''} (Appendix \ref{app:martin}: 19:31)
\end{quote}
This is in fact what \cite{GEELS} implicitly describe as power differentiation among the actors where one actor may not be strong enough to exert pressure on the existing regime and promote a niche innovation. In addition to this, although they are different external actors, researchers and scientists have tried to exert pressure on existing regime by drawing attention to the negative externalities, one of them being congestion issue in current Internet. Geels and Schot argue that this landscape pressure and outside criticism cannot lead to transition immediately. R\"udiger also acknowledge this by saying,
\begin{quote}
\textit{``I would say I am not so sure whether ICN would really ever make it to a stage where the host-centric paradigm is suddenly completely replaced by the information-centric paradigm and that you can also hear from operators, if you talk to operators, it may be used in niche products, it may be used internally [24:53], it may be used in addition to the unapparent items''} (Appendix \ref{app:martin}: 23:55)
\end{quote}

\noindent When talking about incentives for deployment of ICN, it also seems relevant to mention what R\"udiger Martin expresses. His arguments clearly depicts that there should be some business incentives for ICN to catalyse the deployment. This can be also clearly presumed from his statement, where he says that

\begin{quote}

\textit{``the actors like the telecom operators who would probably be the one to take it on board since. I believe that ICN is also a bit about the struggle of content providers and also content distribution network providers like Akamai for instance, who are making lots of business with the contents against telecom providers and the telecom providers now may take up [28:01] ICN to kind of gain a bit more power in that struggle. Its basically up to them to take it.''} (Appendix \ref{app:martin}: 25:30)

\end{quote}

\noindent Furthermore, explaining about the possibility of deployment of ICN in to the society level R\"udiger Martin express his view:
\begin{quote}
\textit{``These research programs, where we are doing the funding involves also industry and you probably have seen the consortia which were behind the SAIL and also PURSUIT, especially in the same case they were lot of interesting partners like Orange Telecom, Nokia Siemens Networks and so on and so on involved and those projects always at the pre-competitive level meaning they are not actual products yet [...]. It is more at on much earlier stage where the path is prepared that it can happen but at the end it is not really up to us [...].''} (Appendix \ref{app:martin}: 19:31)
\end{quote}
So, beside public and volunteer interests there are also private interests in the development of ICN but, as explained above, these interests are somehow limited to the research level and are not advanced towards further development. One of the reasons for this can be that there are not any short-term commercial goals for the private partners.


\subsection{Institutional Behaviour}

It is a reasonable thought that the issues regarding the creation of incentives and motivations for the deployment of ICN also depend on the institutional design.  We want to point out if the institutional design and behaviour is a hurdle for the deployment of ICN.
 
Although R\"udiger did not explicitly mention the institutional model that supports the current Internet paradigm, his illustration explains it implicitly:
\begin{quote}
\textit{``I think even though there was lots of researches in last few years. It is still not fully clear what are all the scaling, does it really scale, If you roll it out. Then there is also still not a single fully clear standard, meaning in all study approaches so that the European and the American one. There are still certain things not fully specified. So, it will not go through to the end yet.''}(Appendix \ref{app:martin}: 25:30)
\end{quote}
This indirectly depicts that there is no clear institutional control and the clear hierarchy is missing. This goes directly along with Olsen et al.'s conclusion about voluntary organizational contribution, where cooperation is hindered by strategic uncertainties. \bigskip

\noindent Furthermore, R\"udiger Martin clarifies that there are different ICN projects handled by EU FP7 project and they enforce competition between different organizations working on different projects under ICN,
\begin{quote}
\textit{``I would not use align because align means that you, in my interpretation, align means that you are trying to push them [,different ICN projects,] all in one direction, SO, but we still of course allow for competing approaches.''} (Appendix \ref{app:martin}: 16:12)
\end{quote} 
But still these organizations are asked to talk to each other and share there ideas. A competition between different implementation of an ICN architecture will possibly lead to best possible outcome, but the competition is limited to be between research institutions, which alone can not exert pressure in the further development of the niche-innovation.

\subsection{Innovation Characteristics}

The type of innovation under which ICN falls might be relevant to determine when discussing the barriers for a transition of the Internet. Although its very perplexing to clearly define ICN  as an innovation, it can be argued as an innovation on the basis of Schumpeterian concept of ``new combination''. 

On the basis of R\"udiger Martin's explanation we can say that ICN is not fully developed to be deployed - instead it is at a pre-competitive level. One can argue that ICN is a niche innovation but it is not fully developed to exert pressure to the regime. So, from Geels explanation of transition in multi-level perspectives, we can argue that although there is a certain landscape pressure because of the convergence, ICN as a niche-innovation is not developed enough to constitute a regime.

R\"udiger Martin implicitly points that we are in some sort of lock-in situation from where it is impossible to exit using a radical deployment approach. This can be witnessed from the statement where he says
\begin{quote}
\textit{``I would say I am not so sure whether ICN would really ever make it to a stage where the host-centric paradigm is suddenly completely replaced by the information centric paradigm [...]''} (Appendix \ref{app:martin}: 23:27)
\end{quote} 
